Ipperwash Testimony - Feb 20

Update: how convenient for the live web cast to kick out just before Harris was being questioned on his knowledge that the ex parte injunction was accepted in the cabinet meeting on the 6th before the dining room meeting.

I had other stuff to finish off this morning so I missed Julian Falconer's questioning. I did though, try to read through some previous testimony. In particular testimony from Jeff Bangs from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

In particular the subject of an injunction, the negotiations on the Williams Treaty and who called the dining room meeting


Q: At that point in time at least from 3 my client's perspective, it would appear that MNR is 4 looking to get the injunction and the OPP is handling 5 what's occurring on the ground and waiting for this 6 injunction to take place; is that fair?
7 A: My memory is that nothing happened as
8 far as the injunction was concerned until the OPP asked
9 that it happen. So, while it had been discussed as a
10 possible tool in the tool kit, if you will, previously it
11 was only to be done once the OPP had asked that it occur.

Inquiry Document 1012232 Exhibit P-498 - Guidelines – Discretionary Powers of the Committee Schedule with items A to G (B to F are negotiating options)Q: And following that decision the
11 Ontario Government under Premier Rae recognized that
12 these were the only First -- Treaty First Nations,
13 perhaps in Canada, that had no harvesting rights under
14 their Treaty.
15 Were you aware of that?
16 A: Yes.
17 Q: And the Government -- that Government
18 entered into some negotiations and made an arrangement
19 for some harvesting rights for the Williams Treaty First
20 Nations?
21 A: Yes.
22 Q: And it was the Harris Government,
23 under Premier Harris and your Minister, who cancelled
24 that arrangement; is that correct?
25 A: Yes. That's correct.
35
1 Q: And we've heard evidence that it was
2 that cancellation that led to the occupation of Serpent
3 Mounds Park or the takeover of Serpent Mounds Park.
4 A: It was certainly a factor, yes.
Q: Okay. When Mr. Downard was asking
19 you some questions on behalf of Mr. Harris, you
20 indicated, and I think I'm quoting this accurately that:
21 "The Premier was told repeatedly --
22 [and this would be in the context of
23 the dining room meeting] was told
24 repeatedly that there was no role for
25 him."
36
1 Was that your evidence as you recall it?
2 A: Yes.
3 Q: To me that suggests the one or more
4 persons repeatedly thought that the Premier was trying to
5 take a role at that meeting. Was that your experience?
6 A: No. My perception in the meeting was
7 that the Premier was not sure why he was actually in the
8 meeting if there was no role for him other than the
9 discussion about the injunction which he was asked to
10 consent to or to comment on.
11 But, he did not -- my sense was that there
12 was some level of frustration on his part as to why he
13 was there if there was no role for him. In fact, at the
14 end of the meeting he stood up and left the meeting which
15 brought the meeting to an end.
16 Q: And is it your recollection that the
17 Premier had made statements or suggested that he wanted
18 to take a role beyond the subject of injunctions and
19 that's why --
20 A: No, that wasn't --
21 Q: -- the discussion --
22 A: -- that wasn't my perception, no.
23 Q: That wasn't your perception?
24 A: No.
25 Q: Okay. Those are my questions. Thanks

Now the following flips to Harris' testimony last week about the dining room meeting:

Q: Maybe I could just step to -- in fact 23 this is my last topic, but the dining room meeting. 24 We've heard from Mr. Runciman that he understood that it 25 was your staff that called that meeting in the dining
233
1 room.
2 And that he was summonsed by your staff to
3 attend at that meeting in the dining room.
4 A: Okay.
5 Q: Does that help your recollection as
6 to who called the meeting?
7 A: No. I -- I don't know who called the
8 meeting. But once a decision was made to have a meeting,
9 it could very well have been called by my staff.
10 Q: Do I take it then that the decision
11 to have that meeting was made by somebody in the
12 Premier's office?
13 A: No. I wouldn't conclude that. I --
14 I actually had a sense that it was -- was kind of came
15 out at the Interministerial Committee meeting that we've
16 kind of come to a consensus here that all the Ministers
17 are -- are meeting right now in Cabinet, would it make
18 sense to -- to brief them.
19 I don't know how that came forward. It
20 could have by Ms. Hutton, it could have been by somebody
21 at -- but I thought it flowed out of the -- the
22 Interministerial Committee meeting. But it could have
23 been other options. I wasn't of them.
24 Q: Well, if it flowed out of the IMC
25 meeting, it would have been Ms. Hutton, wouldn't it, that
234
1 would book your dining room for such a meeting?
2 A: She could have or could have asked
3 for it to be made available or she could have said, could
4 we just use the Cabinet office afterwards. I -- I don't
5 know. Or Cabinet room after.
6 Q: I suggest to you by the time the
7 dining room meeting came around, you had a level of
8 frustration with this whole incident that wasn't apparent
9 the day before, and which drove much of your activity in
10 the dining room.
11 And I suggest to you that by the time the
12 dining room meeting rolled around, you knew or you saw
13 this, as requiring action by your government to deal with
14 what you perceived as an illegal action.
15 Is that fair?
16 A: No, I don't recall a level of
17 frustration. I -- I've got to be honest with you. I
18 don't want to minimize the -- the concern of the -- the
19 occupiers. But back in Toronto at Queen's Park with the
20 issues before us, it was not viewed as -- as a great
21 crisis, as that huge a deal. It was something that was
22 occurring, but it wasn't something that -- that had that
23 -- that level of -- of urgency.

So if Ipperwash didn't have that level of urgency why was an ex parte injunction called when there was no emergency (which is the meaning of ex parte) or "level of emergency"?

This sequence is from Harris' testimony last week with respect to questioning. It was frustrating listening to the questioning until Mr. Scullion got up and was thorough, deliberate and asked questions simply.

MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Sir, I'm asking a 22 question. The question is, would he not think that 23 putting out a communication message that the OPP has been 24 asked to remove people from the Park would create an 25 expectation of the part of the public.
62
1 That was answered by Ms. Hutton in one
2 way, it was answered by in another way. And I do have
3 the right with great respect, Mr. Commissioner, to
4 explore his answer --
5 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: No.
6 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- because I -- I
7 would like to explore it not --
8 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: But, Ms. --
9 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- from Ms.
10 Hutton's point of view, but from the point of view of
11 him --
12 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: He --
13 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: -- as an
14 experienced politician who knows the way people react to
15 press account.
16 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: I don't
17 think this is a fair examination, Mr. Rosenthal, and I'd
18 ask you to move on.
19 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: Well, I strongly
20 disagree, Mr. Commissioner, but of course I must accept
21 your view.
22 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: Thank you.
23 I think you should move on.
24 MR. PETER ROSENTHAL: But I intend to
25 make submissions about that, Mr. Commissioner.
63
1 COMMISSIONER SIDNEY LINDEN: That's fine